Anda di halaman 1dari 5

One more thing...

from a practical perspective, how would these short-term marriages work with
regard to things like Social Security death benefits for spouses? What if you were married 6 times,
each for 2 years, to different people, who gets the survivor benefits? Is it split between all of them?
Does nobody get them? Does the last person you were married to get them? If you die when you're
60 and you were briefly married in your 30's, I'm not sure I think that spouse you were briefly married
to 30 years ago has any right to survivor benefits. How would things like that work, practically

Maybe the answer is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave that to
religion. Those of us who want to make lifelong commitments can do so, and those who want
temporary partnerships can do that too. The government can issue you a marriage license or
domestic partnership contract (take the emotionally-charged word marriage out of it altogether) for
however long you choose (as long as lifelong remains an option, I don't think that should get taken
away for those who want it).

Marriage still brings a certain level of societal support and recognition that two people have made a
lifelong commitment to each other. Their friends, families, etc. treat them as a unit as a result and
accord the relationship a certain level of respect. If marriage becomes a temporary, renewable
contract, that will change the way people perceive married couples. I don't see it as a positive thing.

Marriage expiration and...renewal?!

Courtesy of the Manila Bulletin


The proposal of a women’s partylist group [more like radical feminist group to me!] to prescribe
expiration dates on marriage contracts has drawn mixed reactions from lawmakers, with at least
one senator saying the proposal is a good starting point for discussing current social issues.

“It’s a reflection of what is happening in our society,” Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said in
the vernacular, apparently referring to the growing clamor from women for more rights and
social freedoms. [more like a reflection of the growing radicalism and secularism in this vastly
Catholic country!]

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel, Jr. for his part said he finds the idea floated
by the 1-Ako Babaeng Astig Aasenso (1-ABAA) as funny. [I find it outrageous!]

The group’s main advocacy is “to help women become economically empowered by
helping them become entrepreneurs, giving them better employment, providing
sources of livelihood, access to capital, and other ways to make women financially
independent.”[and where is marriage license renewal in all of these?]

“It’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in my life. Ibig sabihin trial lang ang marriage? (Does it mean
marriage is just a trial?),” Pimentel said of the group’s novel proposal.

The issue of a marriage contract with expiration will certainly go against the majority belief that
marriage is a sacred union, Pimentel added. [It is not a majority belief, it is a universal belief
held bymost religions in the world!]

Aside from the Philippines being a predominantly Christian country, Pimentel pointed out that
the Philippine Constitution also recognizes the family as the basic unit of society. [precisely! the
proposal is un-constitutional!]

“It will go against the Constitutional provision that family is the basic foundation of society.
Certainly the proposal will also go against majority beliefs,” Pimentel said.

Even in a country which exercises democracy, women still experience inequality, Cayetano said,
although he agreed with Pimentel’s view that the family is the basic unit of society.

Cayetano, in an interview, said he sees the proposal as a good starting point for discussing social
issues, but the senator said he doubts whether efforts to introduce such measure in Congress
would succeed since many lawmakers are still conservative.

“Kung divorce nga hindi mapag-usapan, iyon pa kaya,” Cayetano said. [Thank God!]

The proponents said a 10-year expiration on marriages would give couples the
opportunity to review their relationship, and decide whether to continue or not
with the union.


I saw a panel discussion of this proposal done on live nationwide TV this morning just as I was
to leave for work.

The position of the women's group: Since annulments and broken marriages are on the rise,
might as well put an expiration date on the marriage contract and let the couples decide if they
want to renew it.

Ok let's put things in perspective.

One, renew marriage licenses. Like renewing driver's license? License to carry
firearms? STOOOPID.

Two, since annulments are rampant might as well legalize it. Following suit, let's legalize graft
and corruption since it is SOOOO institutionalized in the government. Let's legalize drug
trafficking and drug addiction since it is SOOO rampant in the country especially in that
despicable night club in Fort Bonifacio. STOOOPID.

If in case the couples decide not to renew the license, what happens to their children who are
just...10 years old or maybe a few year younger? Isn't it the job of government and society to
strengthen and keep marriages together?

Marriage is a relationship and an institution. It is not a mere piece of paper and a ritual. You
cannot choose who your parents and relatives will be, but you can choose who your spouse will
be. And in nature as in life, there are certain conditions, one of these is that marriage is a
declaration of a man and a woman, publicly professing their love for each other "in sickness and
in health 'til death do them part". It is the basic unit of society without which any civilized
nation would survive. That is the reason why there is no such thing as a gay marriage because
gay people cannot pro-create! And pro-creation is the way for the survival of the world. That is
how nature works and that is how society works.

The representative of the women's rights group even said she blamed the Church for the strict
rules on marriages, for not allowing divorce or a quick way out of a troubling relationship.

I love what the guest priest in the panel discussion said in response, "Let us not blame society
and even the Church for the problems of a relationship. First and foremost, it is the
responsibility of the couples to nurture that relationship as in other relatioships. The Church's
role is to bless the union that the couples made in front of God and His people and to make sure
that that union stays strong until the moment of death."

As for this proposal, it sends red flags everywhere; signs that radical feminism is creeping into
Philippine society and it is not a good thing!


By the way, I don't want to do this but I have no choice...

This party list group 1-Ako Babaeng Astig Aasenso (1-ABAA) gave me the nail to their
coffin. And I would gladly hammer it down!

I hope you remember that too on May 10, 2010!

Posted by The Pinoy Catholic at 9:10 AM

Men and women weigh in on 1-ABAA's proposal

“As long as it doesn’t become another crazy process with unjustified fees, this may be a
good thing." -Ces Mendoza, engaged

“Having to renew your marriage contract every ten years seems fine. But what if you’re
already old? It’d be too much of a hassle then. Hindi ba parang mawawala yung
pagiging ‘big thing’ ng pagpapakasal pag ganun kadali na p’wedeng pabayaan na
lang? Parang hindi magandang mag-expire yung kasal dahil hindi mo na talaga
maaasikaso [ang renewal ng contract] kung malapit nang mamatay." -Daniel Barretto,
who wants to be a family man someday

“It’s not a bad idea. [But I think] it’s enough that there’s already an existing procedure for
marriages that fail. Marriage is really a big risk." -Kevin Arriola, engaged to be married
in 2012

“I think [1-ABAA’s] objective is good but I doubt if [the law could be changed that easily].
It would cause a lot of chaos. I’m still old-fashioned and naniniwala ako that marriage is
a sacred lifelong commitment. It’s not just a trial and error process." -Tina Zuñiga,
Arriola’s fiancée

“The idealist in me says that such a provision would be counter-productive. Why would
people try harder to make things work if they have such an easy ‘out’? The practical
side of me says it makes a lot of sense. However, rather than making it easy to dissolve
a union, why not find ways to make marriages work properly? And have they made
provisions for the children of such dissolved unions? A marriage contract, if it were only
based on money or ‘business' should be able to expire. But a marriage should be more
than that. Its currency is in people’s lives and the lives of all those around them. Such
relationships do not expire. They are meant to be nurtured, not treated as commodities."
-Cecille Jabier, married for 21 years - See more at:

Just find ways to make marriages work properly, suggested Cecille Jabier who had been married for 21
years. Better yet, make provisions for children of dissolved unions. “A marriage contract, if it were only
based on money or ‘business' should be able to expire. But a marriage should be more than that. Its currency
is in people’s lives and the lives of all those around them. Such relationships do not expire. They are meant
to be nurtured.”

parang hindi ako aprub diyan sa batas na yan! nonsense! i mean what's the essence of getting
married and signing a marriage contract if you'll put a term to it. parang "good tayo for 10 years
ha... let's see what will happen after that". in the first place, ang kasal, huwes or simbahan man,
pinagiisipan dapat yang mabuti. kung magkakaroon ng expiration date ang marriage contract,
parang sinabi mo na rin na pakikisamahan kita hanggang gusto ko. sino pa ang seseryoso sa
kasal kung ganon di ba? dahil sa totoo lang, halos lahat ng magasawa, dumarating sa point na
nagsisisi bat tayo nagasawa or nagsasawa tayo sa buhay natin. pero dahil nangako tayo na for
better or for worse, in sickness and in health til death do us part, we try to make things work and
most of the time we see the goodness in that, we become better couples, better parents and we
raise happier kids. sa propose nila, parang it encourages couple not to give their best to the
marriage dahil pwede ka namang kumawala kung ayaw mo. yung "wala lang, ayoko na, sawa na
ako, move on na ". e paano ang mga anak? gaya ng sabi ninyo, maraming involve na bagay na
dapat ayusin.

for me, it doesn't benefit everybody. dapat kung magpapasa ka ng ganyang resolusyon, e yung
magbebenefit lahat ng tao, lahat ng pamilya. ang nakikita ko lang na totoong magbebenefit dito
ay yung mga asawang abused at mga asawang kinaliwa or niloko. sana..instead na bigyan nila ng
expiration ang marriage contract, magpasa na lang sila ng batas na mabilis na pagpawalang bisa
ng kasal kung ang asawa ay inabuso at niloko. yung hindi na aabot ng taon bago kayo ma-annul.
at pagtibayin nila yung mandatory child support at alimony sa asawa gaya sa North America.
hindi naman kasi yan napapatupad ng maayos sa pinas kung meron mang existing na batas na

C.K. Yeo, Iloilo City: It would have been unthinkable to suggest an expiry period for marriage 20 years
ago. But in this age of cyberspace, maybe it’s okay. Let’s limit marriage to 10 years. Let’s go even further,
support our children only until they are 18. The SSS and GSIS should limit their pensions to 10 years and
after that, you are on your own. Maybe have an expiry for friends, too. But wait, who’s going to take care
of the children after 18? Who’s going to take care of our parents or us when the contract expires? Setting
expiry dates on some things are wrong. They are okay only on food, passports, and registrations. The
party-list group didn’t consider emotional attachment between couples, parents and children, and old
people. We are not robots. The party-list that suggested this must be crazy

Cris Rivera, Rizal: No, it’s a blatant disregard of God’s law on marriage. It favors an increase in the
incidence of broken families. It’s a one-way proposal that is detrimental to children’s well-being.

Louella Brown, Baguio City: There should be no expiration period on marriage. We have adequate laws
that serve as remedies to marital problems.

Ruben Viray, Antipolo City: Marriage is a promise of love between two people and it has to be nurtured
and protected and never be broken. It is an eternal partnership of two individuals that love each other.
This union must stay strong against all odds. It should never be treated like an ordinary commodity that
has a shelf life because these are two human souls joined together for the rest of their lives. I honestly
believe that the party-list group’s suggestion was ill-advised and should be disregarded. Perhaps legal
separation can be considered, but not divorce.

Don’t pledge to live together in sickness or in health, ‘till death do you part if you are not 100 per cent sure
of your commitment. Why marry if you think you have the potential to have to “renew”?

No way; marriage between spouses is a contract for life which is ‘till death do us part. The suggestion
may be good to some, but it will be contrary to the accepted general norm of marriage in accordance with
the Church and state laws.